Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Pages needing attention

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Tarquin (talk | contribs) at 09:48, 20 September 2002. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Of course, every entry on Wikipedia deserves attention. But some entries deserve tender loving attention.

If you come across a page that you think needs a lot of work, but have no idea how to approach it, list it here so that others can find it.

This page is very similar to the other pages like: Requested articles, Current events. However it is more utilitarian than those pages, being intended for the editorial community alone.

You might also want to look at:

Articles that seem to be nothing more than definitions

Wikipedia is not a dictionary, and an article which simply defines a word is useless. Sometimes, those articles can turn into bona fide encyclopedic treatments of a topic; sometimes they should just be deleted.

The above series of definitions do not appear to have been expanded or improved in the six months since February 25. Even the details of where they came from are lost in pre-history. For the most part these definitions appear isolated from their contexts. I know nothing of the theoretical study of hierarchies. Perhaps someone who understands this stuff can bring all this into a single coherent and cohesive article, or possibly scrap some articles completely. Eclecticology 04:00 Aug 30, 2002 (PDT)

More than definitions but still stubs

  • Homepage definition -- also an orphan.
  • Jane Goodall moved this from "24" section.
  • Bonobo ibid.
  • RFC although not itself a stub, this article links to RFC 0823 and a number of similarly titled articles which are, and which should probably be merged with the head article. Before barging ahead with such an undertaking, I thought it better to have the entire question reviewed by someone more familiar with the field. The head article should probably also be renamed to reflect policy about abbreviations and acronyms. Eclecticology 17:22 Sep 13, 2002 (UTC)

Other stubs

  • Miyuki - originally violated copyright. Now a stub with only an external link to the previously copied page. Also an orphan except for the link from this page. Should perhaps be deleted.

See also Wikipedia utilities/find or fix a stub.


Articles that have good information, but need work for some reason

Please be more precise. What kind of work? The article looks fine to me.David 13:16 Aug 22, 2002 (PDT)

Articles which appear to be highly contentious

Articles containing outdated text

The following articles were drawn from out-of-date public ___domain texts, such as the 1911 Encyclopedia Anglicana, the 1911 Catholic Encyclopedia, or the 1881 Household Cyclopedia. Or, they may contain large sections drawn from such texts. In any event, they require fact-checking, modernization, and deletion of anachronisms. (This may be the best way to deal with the flood of dubious material from 62.98. It's a lot more constructive than flame wars.)

Abgar -- Club

  • More articles by 62.98.xx.xx containg Household Cyclopedia material. Added to previously existing articles. Dog

Articles of dubious merit, accuracy and/or validity

  • Alfred Korzybski -- most of the article is not in English
  • Masculism (NPOV problems) --
  • Topory - there's a user Topory, but he didn't write this, and the only link to it is User:Piotr Parda; it's a message in Polish telling him what to do with his user page

The following articles are by an author who does not tend to follow the consensus NPOV - rather, he/she has their own concept of wikipedia:Natural point of view. All these articles, and other works by this author, need close attention and review to place them in an NPOV format.


I revealed that conception to spark a dialogue - it isn't what I apply in writing articles. Your characterization is entirely reasonable as your own opinion, but it belongs in a separate file. -24

Although they have not created a login, more pages by this author can be found at special:contributions&theuser=24.150.61.63.

The user has also been using the main page at meta.wikipedia.com to draw attention to his views and agenda. It is perfectly legitimate to air personal views about Wikipedia on meta - that is what it's there for. However, the main page is there chiefly as a contents page to the articles on meta, not to advertise particular ideas.

there are none of my "views" nor "agenda" there - simply governance concerns that dominate this project since Larry has been gone. There's a process there to assess the "status quo" of the project based on threats, visions, best cases, worst cases, perceived by others ... the simplest possible governance method. It's a completely values-neutral process. -24

Please review what 24.150.61.63 has written before you add a link here - this person on occassion writes decent material. However, if you see that 24 has written some worthless gibberish, then simply REVERT the page to its pre-24 state. ONLY post articles by 24 that are of dubious merit (i.e. semicoherent ramblings or surprising suppositions).

I submit that most of what's here is very likely just here because I wrote it, if in fact I did. Some of this list is things that I have barely touched, or which other people consensed. That said, if you want to put more effort into my writing that that of others, go ahead, it can hardly hurt the project itself.

Files relating to Wikipedia Operations

Files containing prehistoric discussions

Much of the content here is based on long abandoned ideas. Old old hands may have better background to know what should happen to this stuff

Other Wikipedia Utilities


See also : Wikipedia utilities
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Pages_needing_attention&oldid=309395"